Smoking cessation and survival among people diagnosed with non-metastatic cancer

Smoking cessation counselling patterns in cancer patients - survey of Lebanese physicians

Introduction

Tobacco smoking is a known risk factor for cancer development and smoking cessation can lower this risk and improve outcomes in some cancer patients. Despite that, many cancer patients do not quit smoking after a cancer diagnosis, and smoking cessation counselling is still not routinely provided in cancer care. The aim of this study is to examine patterns in smoking cessation counselling to cancer patients by their treating physicians.

Methods

A self-administered, web-based (mobile-friendly), anonymous questionnaire was developed on LimeSurvey and sent by e-mail to Lebanese physicians of different specialties between June 2020 and January 2022. Data were analysed using SPSS and associations between the different items were determined using the χ2 test.

Results

A total of 146 physicians filled out the questionnaire. Almost all physicians ask cancer patients about their smoking status, but only 45.9% provide smoking cessation counselling, and only 24% refer patients to smoking cessation counselling programs. Only 27.4% of all respondents have received formal smoking cessation training, and only 27.4% feel capable of providing smoking cessation counselling in their clinic. Specifically, family medicine physicians were more likely to provide smoking cessation counselling in the clinic (69%), more likely to refer patients to a smoking cessation counselling program (44%), and more likely to have received formal smoking cessation counselling training (67%) and more likely to feel capable of providing smoking cessation counselling (93%). Lack of training, lack of knowledge of available programs and the lack of availability of enough programs are leading obstacles contributing to low rates of smoking cessation counselling in cancer patients as reported by the physicians.

Conclusion

Our data reveals a deficiency in smoking cessation counselling and referral of cancer patients to smoking cessation counselling programs in our region. This highlights the need for dedicated smoking cessation counselling training for practicing physicians and physicians in training.

Health-promoting behaviors among middle-aged breast cancer survivors compared with matched non-cancer controls: A KNHANES VI-VII (2013-2018) study

This study aimed to compare health-promoting behaviors between middle-aged breast cancer survivors and matched non-cancer controls. We conducted a retrospective, cross-sectional, matched case-control study using data from Korean National Health and Nutrition Examination Surveys (KNHANES) VI-VII (2013-2018) to compare health-promoting behaviors. We selected breast cancer survivors aged 40 to 65 who completed the surveys, and each case was matched with 5 non-cancer controls (1:5) based on propensity scores. With multivariable logistic regression, middle-aged breast cancer survivors were compared with controls in terms of their last screening for a second primary cancer (SPC), current smoking status, alcohol consumption, aerobic physical activity (PA), sedentary time, and self-reported diet control. The final study sample consisted of 117 middle-aged breast cancer survivors and 585 non-cancer controls after propensity score matching (PSM). In the multivariable analysis, middle-aged breast cancer survivors were less likely to consume alcohol (odds ratio [OR] 0.58, 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.35-0.95), more likely to engage in aerobic PA (OR, 1.60; 95% CI, 1.01-2.54), and more likely to self-report diet control (OR, 2.12; 95% CI, 1.27-3.53). There were no significant intergroup differences in SPC screening uptake within 2 years, smoking status, or sedentary times. There is a need to educate middle-aged breast cancer survivors about SPC screening, smoking cessation, and minimizing sedentariness to reduce the risks of associated with breast cancer recurrence, SPCs, and comorbid chronic diseases.

Effective Timing of Introducing an Inpatient Smoking Cessation Program to Cancer Patients

PURPOSE

We aimed to identify factors influencing smoking cessation success among cancer patients registered in an inpatient smoking cessation program at a single cancer center.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The electronic medical records of enrolled patients with solid cancer were retrospectively reviewed. We evaluated factors associated with 6-month smoking cessation.

RESULTS

A total of 458 patients with cancer were included in this study. Their mean age was 62.9±10.3 years, and 56.3% of the participants had lung cancer. 193 (42.1%) had not yet begun their main treatment. The mean number of counseling sessions for the participants was 8.4±3.5, and 46 (10.0%) patients were prescribed smoking cessation medications. The 6-month smoking cessation success rate was 48.0%. Multivariate analysis showed that younger age (<65 years), cohabited status, early stage, and the number of counseling sessions were statistically significant factors affecting 6-month smoking cessation success (p<0.05). Initiation of a cessation program before cancer treatment was significantly associated with cessation success (odds ratio, 1.66; 95% confidence interval, 1.02-2.70; p=0.040).

CONCLUSION

Smoking cessation intervention must be considered when establishing a treatment plan immediately after a cancer diagnosis among smokers.

Treating Smoking in Cancer Patients: An Essential Component of Cancer Care-The New National Cancer Institute Tobacco Control Monograph

PURPOSE

Continued smoking after the diagnosis of cancer can markedly worsen oncology treatment side effects, cancer outcomes, cancer mortality, and all-cause mortality. Conversely, mounting evidence demonstrates that smoking cessation by patients with cancer improves outcomes. A cancer diagnosis often serves as a teachable moment, characterized by high motivation to quit. However, too few patients with cancer who smoke are offered evidence-based smoking cessation treatment, and too few engage in such treatment.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

The National Cancer Institute commissioned Tobacco Control Monograph 23, Treating Smoking in Cancer Patients: An Essential Component of Cancer Care, to review and synthesize the evidence that clarifies the need to intervene with smoking in cancer care.

RESULTS

Although many patients with newly diagnosed cancer who smoke make quit attempts, many of these are unsuccessful, and among those who successfully quit, relapse is common. Indeed, an estimated 12.2% of adults ever diagnosed with cancer reported they currently smoked (National Health Interview Survey, 2020). Patients with cancer who smoke are likely to benefit from smoking cessation treatments, including counseling and US Food and Drug Administration-approved medications, and there are many effective strategies to increase delivery of smoking cessation treatment in cancer care settings.

CONCLUSION

Smoking cessation is among the most effective treatment options for improving the likelihood of survival, quality of life, and overall health of patients with cancer who smoke. It is important for cancer care clinicians and patients to realize that it is never too late to quit smoking and that there are clear benefits to doing so, regardless of cancer type.

Building staff capability, opportunity, and motivation to provide smoking cessation to people with cancer in Australian cancer treatment centres: development of an implementation intervention framework for the Care to Quit cluster randomised controlled trial

Few rigorous studies provide a clear description of the methodological approach of developing an evidence-based implementation intervention, prior to implementation at scale. This study describes the development, mapping, rating, and review of the implementation strategies for the Care to Quit smoking cessation trial, prior to application in nine cancer services across Australia. Key stakeholders were engaged in the process from conception through to rating, reviewing and refinement of strategies and principles. An initial scoping review identified 21 barriers to provision of evidence-based smoking cessation care to patients with cancer, which were mapped to the Theoretical Domains Framework and Behaviour Change Wheel (BCW) to identify relevant intervention functions. The mapping identified 26 relevant behaviour change techniques, summarised into 11 implementation strategies. The implementation strategies were rated and reviewed against the BCW Affordability, Practicality, Effectiveness and cost-effectiveness, Acceptability, Side-effects/safety, and Equity criteria by key stakeholders during two interactive workshops to facilitate a focus on feasible interventions likely to resonate with clinical staff. The implementation strategies and associated intervention tools were then collated by form and function to provide a practical guide for implementing the intervention. This study illustrates the rigorous use of theories and frameworks to arrive at a practical intervention guide, with potential to inform future replication and scalability of evidence-based implementation across a range of health service settings.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s10742-022-00288-6.

Impact of prognostic factor distributions on mortality disparities for socioeconomically disadvantaged cancer patients

PURPOSE

We aimed to assess whether differences in the distributions of prognostic factors explain reported mortality disparities between urban safety-net and Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) cancer populations.

METHODS

We used data from SEER and a safety-net cancer center in Texas. Eligible patients were adults aged ≤64 years and diagnosed with first primary female breast, colorectal, or lung cancer between 2008 and 2016. We estimated crude and adjusted risk differences (RD) in 3- and 5-year all-cause mortality (1- and 3-year for lung cancer), where adjustment was based on entropy balancing weights that standardized the distribution of sociodemographic and tumor characteristics between the two populations.

RESULTS

Our study populations comprised 1914 safety-net patients and 389,709 SEER patients. For breast cancer, the crude 3- and 5-year mortality RDs between safety-net and SEER populations were 7.7% (95% confidence limits [CL]: 4.3%, 11%) and 11% (95% CL: 6.7%, 16%). Adjustment for measured prognostic factors reduced the mortality RDs (3-year adjusted RD = 0.049%, 95% CL: -2.6%, 2.6%; 5-year adjusted RD = 5.6%, 95% CL: -0.83%, 12%). We observed similar patterns for colorectal and lung cancer albeit less magnitude.

CONCLUSIONS

Sociodemographic and tumor characteristics may largely explain early mortality disparities between safety-net and SEER populations but not late mortality disparities.